Asberry v. Cate et al
Filing
101
ORDER denying 99 Motion to Amend signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 05/02/13. (Plummer, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
TONY ASBERRY,
Plaintiff,
11
12
No. 2: 11-cv-2462 KJM KJN P
vs.
13
MATTHEW CATE, et al.,
14
Defendants.
15
16
17
18
ORDER
/
Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with this civil rights
action seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On April 5, 2013, plaintiff filed a motion to amend his complaint. Plaintiff’s
19
motion was not, however, accompanied by a proposed amended complaint. As a prisoner,
20
plaintiff’s pleadings are subject to evaluation by this court pursuant to the in forma pauperis
21
statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Because plaintiff did not submit a proposed amended
22
complaint, the court is unable to evaluate it. For this reason, the motion to amend is denied.
23
In the motion to amend, plaintiff alleges that he incorrectly named defendant Dr.
24
Chen as a defendant. Plaintiff alleges that he believed that Dr. Chen was inmate Wilson’s
25
psychologist. Plaintiff alleges that he now realizes that Dr. Chen was not inmate Wilson’s
26
psychologist. Plaintiff alleges that he will not know the name of inmate Wilson’s psychologist
1
until after he conducts discovery. Plaintiff requests information regarding how to proceed as to
2
this matter.
If defendant Chen is improperly named as a defendant, then plaintiff may file a
3
4
motion to voluntarily dismiss defendant Chen. Plaintiff may not file a motion to amend his
5
complaint and proposed amended complaint naming inmate Wilson’s doctor as a defendant until
6
he knows the name of that person.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to amend (dkt.
7
8
no. 99) is denied.
9
DATED: May 2, 2013
10
_____________________________________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
11
12
13
as2462.den
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?